cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/11743093
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/11742954
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
I'll be the one to say it: that's just stupid.
Lifeless monoculture lawns are as big a waste of resources as car centric infrastructure. Doubly so when it's in a place where humans can't even walk on it. Triply so when it's in a spot where it will gum up and corrode the rails it's trying to hide.
You do realize this exact system has been utilized everywhere in the world for decades without issue? The alternative is completely sealed pavement so what exactly do you propose to improve this? You wanna have the car lanes back?
Saying sealed pavement is the only alternative is a false dichotomy. Off the top of my head, gravel ballast has been used for centuries.
A quick search shows 30x maintenence costs for minimal drainage benefits.
Civil engineering isn't one size fits all and I'm sure there are some climates + layouts where this makes sense. But I'd prefer putting that green space somewhere where people can use it and minimize the cost, focus and footprint of transportation infrastructure as much as possible.
The two options are green or gray and depressing. The cost of maintaining it wont even show up on the chart compared to the operating cost of the tram network so that shouldnt be an issue.
The options are how you spend your money. Improving tree density can have more benefits for the same budget spend. If that's the case, keep my tram gray and let me hear more birds.
Better than pavement. Of course some native grasses would be better, but this is still an improvement.
This type of grass is native to most of Europe, to be fair. But monoculture is still not great.
But how exactly is it better? Nicer to look at maybe, but there are other materials that can provide drainage and temperature control with better durability and less maintenance.
Such as?
I can already hear the thumps from a healthy culture of critters getting splatted by the train running through wild shrubs over the rails.
Seriously, rock ballast has a maintenance cost too. Concrete has higher construction cost but is cheaper to maintain, but creates the heat island effect. Grass can still help with drainage if engineered well, removes the heat island effect, and is not too much more to maintain, since trams are a lower speed and weight class putting less of a load on the rails. Grass is even better than concrete slab for noise dampening. So grass isn't entirely purposeless and make for a pleasant scenery for people to be near.